• TheCPUWizard (unregistered)

    Seems like a few well crafted search and replace could reduce the clutter by about 70%-80%...

  • (nodebb)

    You have one problem and choose XML to solve it. Congratulations, you now have 100 problems.

  • (nodebb)

    All I can say is I hope they didn't use regexes to parse it

  • Hal (unregistered)

    The original article was from 2k4, and let's all be honest ~2000ish XML and SOAP were the buzz words of the day; everything HAD to get XML enabled. That was the management directive. So lots of projects from the late 90s and start of 2000s had to have their csv, ini-like, line oriented, EBNF grammar, etc handling ripped out replaced with XML, usually by people who had never worked with XML and did not really understand it.

    There is a metric ton of code like this out there from that time period. Just as if you go back at 10 years you going find a ton of code to doing roll-your-own-strigny-JSON handling... At least there is less to really mess up there.

  • Sauron (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • (nodebb)

    I guess it's because devs like this why XML/SOAP got a bad rep. Nothing more to add there.

  • Álvaro González (github)

    I'm pretty confident that I finally understood XML a few years after I last used it.

  • (nodebb)

    They get bonus points for the mix of sprintf() and plain old string concatenation.

  • Dan (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Vincent (unregistered)

    In my defense, SAP Business ByDesign doesn't have a library for building/decoding XML.

  • RAC (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Frank (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF: XML Anybody?”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article